Divine sovereignty-omniscience inerrancy, and open theism: An evaluation

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Jun 2002 by Wellum, Stephen J

How are we to evaluate the Basingers' argument? Two points need to be emphasized. First, the Basingers' argument is reductionistic. Why? It is so because there are more options available to us than what they seem to allow. For example, the FWD is not the only way to absolve God of the responsibility for evil in the world. No doubt, for a person who embraces a libertarian view of human freedom, the FWD is a logically consistent and an attractive option. Nonetheless, it is not the only defense available to a libertarian, nor is it the only defense that is available to other theological viewpoints that do not embrace libertarianism.40 Moreover, along a similar line and more importantly for our purposes, the Basingers are reductionistic in presenting libertarianism as the only option for a defender of inerrancy. Even though it is outside the purpose of this paper, I would argue that a person such as myself, who adopts a view of divine sovereignty that incorporates a compatibilistic understanding of human freedom, is able to affirm premise (2) without contradiction and thus defend a high view of Scripture.

Second, I do think that their argument, however, does have important implications for open theism. Why? Because given open theism's understanding of the sovereignty-freedom relationship, it would seem that it must reject premise (2). But with the rejection of premise (2) there is a very serious entailment, namely, that the theological underpinnings for a high view of Scripture have been greatly weakened. Why? Because if God cannot infallibly guarantee what the human authors freely wrote was precisely what he wanted written, without error, then it seems difficult to substantiate the traditional view of Scripture at this point.41 In fact, most defenders of a high view of Scripture have viewed premise (2) as intimately connected with a proper defense of inerrancy. As E. J. Young wrote many years ago, "inspiration is designed to secure the accuracy of what is taught and to keep the Lord's spokesman from error in his teaching.... inspiration is designed to secure infallibility. . . . "42 But with the undermining of premise (2), open theism greatly weakens the theological defense for an infallible and inerrant Bible.

But does this then entail that the person who adopts open theism or a libertarian view of freedom cannot logically affirm inerrancy? In terms of logical possibility, the answer is no. It is logically possible to affirm that the biblical authors "just happened" to write everything that God wanted them to write, without God guaranteeing it.43 For it is true, as Norman Geisler contends in his response to the Basingers, that "it is not essential (necessary) for humans to err whenever they speak or write . . . human free choice only makes error possible, not necessary."44 But even though it is logically possible to affirm libertarianism and inerrancy, it must be acknowledged that it is highly improbable. For without an infallible guarantee, given the diversity of the biblical authors and the nature of the content of Scripture, the probability that the biblical authors just happened to get everything correct, thus resulting in an infallible and inerrant text, is indeed very, very low.